Complaint No: 559 of 2017.
Date of Institution: 25.10.2017.
Date of order: 03.10.2023.
Jang Bahadur Singh Son of Sh.Prern Singh, resident of Village Bhikhari Harni, Post Office, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
…............Complainant.
VERSUS
1. SBI General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Gurdaspur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, through its Branch Manager.
2. SBI General Insurance Company Limited, 7B, Ground Floor, Rajendra Park, Pusa Road, New Delhi - 110060, through its Authorized Signatory.
3. SBI General Insurance Company Limited, Grievance Redressal Officer, 101, 201, 301, Natraj, Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400069, through its Managing Director.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the complainant: Smt.B.K.Bajwa, Advocate.
For the opposite parties: Sh.Sandeep Ohri, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Jang Bahadur Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant has got insured his Truck in question bearing Registration No. PB-06-Q-5786 from the OP’s which was valid for the period with effect from 24.7.2013 to 23.7.2014 and the OP’s have issued Policy in this regard to the complainant. It is further pleaded that OP’s have assessed the value of the vehicle on which amount the policy was issued and the premium on the said Insurance policy was duly paid by the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant is consumer of the OP’s. It was alleged that on the ill fated day of 10.12.2013, the vehicle of the complainant met with a road accident and the vehicle in question was totally damaged. It is further pleaded that at that point of time, there was co-driver with the complainant namely Paramjit Singh as Second Driver-cum-Cleaner in the Truck in question. It is further pleaded that thereafter the complainant duly informed the OP’s regarding the damage of the vehicle in question and even also reported the matter to the Local Police. It is further pleaded that Police of Police Station Utranv Ilahabad U.P.C. has registered D.D.R. No. in this respect on dated 12.12.2013. It was further stated that the officials of the OP’s had visited the spot and had taken the photographs of the damaged vehicle. It is further pleaded that complainant completed all the formalities in this regard and deposited all the requisite documents with the OP’s. It was further alleged that thereafter the OP’s have appointed a Surveyor for accessing the loss and twice times, the Surveyors have prepared Estate regarding the damage to vehicle the complainant who has assessed very less amount. It is further pleaded that even on the asking of the OP’s, the complainant has got repaired the vehicle in question from making payment from his own pocket. It is further pleaded that complainant has spent Rs.5 Lacs approximately on the repair of the vehicle in question. It is further pleaded that the OP’s have not made the payment of insurance amount to the complainant so far. It was further alleged that earlier the complainant has filed the Consumer Complaint against the OP’s and the OP’s have filed false and frivolous written statement. It is further pleaded that the Surveyor has prepared Report to which they are ready to make the payment. It is further pleaded that thereafter the complainant has filed application for production of the Surveyor report which was supplied by the OP’s before this Hon'ble Commission, which is only amounting to Rs.29,510/-. It was further alleged that the said report is wholly illegal, null and void, forged and fabricated document and is no nest in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside, as the complainant has spent huge amount of Rs.5 Lacs approximately. It was further alleged that the complainant has number of times approached to the OP’s with the request to make the payment of Insurance claim to complainant as loss suffered by the complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant has moved from pillar to post but no needful has been done by the OP’s, rather all the times, the OP’s procrastinated the matter pending with one pretext or the other. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to make the payment of the amount of Rs.5 Lacs which the complainant has spent on repair of the vehicle in question, alongwith interest at the rate of 18% Per Annum from the date of due till its actual realization and the opposite parties may also be directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses amounting to Rs.20,000/- to the complainant, in the interest of justice or any other relief be granted in favor of the complainant which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit according to the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint. It is further pleaded that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that matter of fact is that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated vide letter dated 20.10.2014 and the loss has been occurred on 10.12.2013. It is further pleaded that claim was reported to the insurance Co. on 12.12.2013 and the insurance co. deputed Mr. N.L. Sharma for conducting the survey and loss assessment and the surveyor submitted his final survey report. It is further pleaded that as per documents load challan driver name is Mr. Paramjit Singh S/o Mangal Singh was driving the vehicle at the material time of accident and his driving license was submitted having no.PB-06-2010-0075740. It is further pleaded that as per the driving license Paramjit Singh is authorized to drive LMV, LMV- GV Transport and driving license inception/validity starts from 2.2.2014 but the date of loss is 10.12.2013. So, the driver was not having valid and affect driving license at the time of accident which is breach of terms and conditions of the policy and as such the claim has been repudiated. It is further pleaded that even otherwise if the Ld. Commission comes to the conclusion that there is any liability of the insurance co. then in that case the liability is only as per survey report and not more than IDV value of the vehicle as already stated the vehicle has been duly surveyed by the surveyor and submitted his detailed report. It is further pleaded that the complainant has got the policy for truck which is for commercial purpose and as such the complainant does not fall within the definition of Consumer as provided under section 2-d of Consumer Protection Act and the complainant previously also filed one complaint as referred in the present complaint on the same cause of action and as such the present complaint is not legally maintainable.
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jang Bahadur Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-30.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Akhil Kulhar, (Authorized Signatory, SBI General Insurance Company Ltd, Delhi) as Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-14.
6. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
7. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the truck of the complainant was insured with the opposite parties and during the validity of the insurance the said truck met with accident on 10.12.20213. It is further argued that the opposite parties deputed surveyor who wrongly and illegally assessed the payable amount as Rs.29,510/- and has further argued that repudiation of claim is also arbitrary in the eyes of law as the driver was having a valid driving licence and mere gap of two months is liable to be ignored.
8. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has argued that date of inception/validity of driving licence of driver Paramjit Singh starts from 02.02.2014 but the date of loss is 10.12.2013, as such driver was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. It is further argued that if there is any liability of the insurance company then it is only as per the report of the surveyor.
9. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record. It is admitted fact that complainant is owner of truck bearing No. PB-06-Q-5786 which was insured with the opposite parties w.e.f. 24.07.2013 to 23.07.2014. It is further admitted fact that the truck of the complainant met with an accident on 10.12.2013. It is further admitted fact that the claim lodged by the complainant stands repudiated by the opposite parties vide letter Ex.C17.
10. To prove his case complainant has placed on record bills of repair Ex.C1 to Ex.C8, photo graphs of truck Ex.C9 whereas on the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has placed on record report of surveyor Ex.OP-2, copy of repudiation letter Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-13, copy of verification of driving licence Ex.OP-5, copy of driving licence Ex.OP-7, copy of registration certificate Ex.OP-11.
11. Perusal of driving licence shows that the driver Paramjit Singh was having a licence for LTV/HTV valid from 24.09.2010 to 23.09.2013 and the same licence was renewed for LMV, LMV-GV Transport only w.e.f. 03.02.2014 to 02.05.2033 for transport validity upto 02.02.2017, meaning thereby that the driver of the complainant Paramjit Singh was having driving skills to drive the truck at the time of accident and the original driving licence expired on 23.09.2013 and had a grace period upoto 23.10.2013 and the accident took place on 10.12.2013 and later on said licence was renewed on 03.2.2014 and there is a gap of two months only meaning thereby that it is not the case of the opposite parties that the driver of the complainant was not having driving skills to drive the truck at the time of accident and mere delay of 2-3 months in the renewal of the licence by the driver is not ground to repudiate the claim. The second question is regarding amount which is payable to the complainant. As per the pleadings the complainant has pleaded that he had spent Rs.5 Lacs on the repair of the truck but we gone through the report of surveyor of opposite parties as per which the total payable amount has been assessed as Rs,29,510/-.
12. We have gone through the report of the surveyor which is well reasoned and we do not find any ground to ignore the report of the surveyor and as such by relying upon the report of the surveyor we partly allow the present complaint and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.29,510/- on non stardard basis after deducting 15 % from the above amount of Rs.29,510/- as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account mental tension, harassment and cost of litigation. Entire exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
13. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
14. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Oct. 03, 2023 Member.
*YP*
